Article 24 Still Matters!

By Larry Beane



"[N]o novelty has been introduced which did not exist in the church from ancient times... no conspicuous change has been made in the public ceremonies of the Mass..." 

 ~ AC 24:40 (German, Tappert ed. p 60)


The video above (from an ELCA congregation) illustrates the wisdom of our Reformation fathers, a wisdom we seek to carry on in the reverently-celebrated traditional liturgy.  Unfortunately, even in our own LCMS communion, Article 24 is often bent and stressed to its limit - if not outright broken - by both liturgical novelty (such as "contemporary worship") and theological novelty (such as women vesting and serving at the altar during Mass).

The confessors understood that such innovation is playing with fire.

The above video shows liturgical and theological innovation taken to its inevitable end.  Here we have a group of people pretending to be the church, pretending to be Lutheran, led by a man pretending to be a woman (who incidentally prefers neither the pronoun "he" nor "she," but "they"), who is pretending to be a pastor, pretending to sing the Words of Institution over bread and wine, pretending to celebrate the Eucharist, pretending Jesus is present for such a farce.

He is even pretending to sing a Beatles' song.

Thus our Lord's sacrifice on the cross, His atoning blood shed for the forgiveness of sins, and the glorious good news of the resurrection to come, by faith in His name, through His grace, in the proclamation of His marvelous and merciful Word - is reduced to this shallow and rather pathetic perversion.

The Book of Concord is as relevant today as it was in the sixteenth century.  And Lutherans would do well to submit to the Lord's Word as confessed and explicated by the treasury that is our collection of symbolical writings - and to do so in matters both of doctrine and practice.  For doctrine shapes practice and practice shapes doctrine.

Our fathers in the faith understood this.  We need to understand this now more than ever.  The pastor who told me that Article 24 is no longer relevant and is not binding on pastors in our day and age is simply wrong.  Perhaps even more than in 1530, Article 24 still matters!

Come Quickly, Lord Jesus!

The Brady Bunch, the Book of Concord, and a Paternal Postscript

By Larry Beane

As addressed definitively by Father Curtis in a previous post, our Lord's words in Matt 23:9-10 are often used by Protestants to decry the "Roman Catholic" custom of calling their pastors "Father."  Fr. Curtis addressed the biblical passages that conflict with that peculiar minority view found in modern American Protestant Christianity that vociferously attacks the "Father" custom.

I offer the following as a sort of PS, as the issue keeps popping up like the proverbial Whack-A-Mole carnival game.  The argument hinges on the question of our Lord's context.  Is this passage to be interpreted literally ("this is my body") or figuratively ("if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out")?  An episode of The Brady Bunch revolved around this kind of thing when Greg, seeking to work around being grounded, parsed his parents' decree by invoking "exact words" - knowing full well what the intent was.  Let's just say that Greg's hermeneutic did not get him closer to truth and the dishonesty rather complicated matters.

Regarding the assumption that the "father" custom is "Roman Catholic, there is a gap between perception and reality.  For the ancient custom is not only practiced by Roman Catholics, but also by Eastern Orthodox Christians, many Anglicans worldwide, and numerous Lutherans in diverse countries around the world, and to a lesser extent, in the United States.  Moreover, it is also practiced by Protestants and Lutherans when they refer to Roman Catholic clergymen by the title "Father."  If our Lord's words are intended to be taken literally, a Protestant Christian should never refer to a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran pastor as "Father" - for the Lord's "exact words" (thank you, Greg Brady!) are "call no man father."

The "calling" is contrary to our Lord's words as well as the "being called."

And the Lord says "call no man," which would include our earthly fathers, church fathers, founding fathers, step-fathers, city fathers, grandfathers, etc.  If the Lord is being literal here, we must come up with a different name for "Father's Day."  Or, to invoke Greg Brady yet again in another episode, maybe teenagers, in order to be consistent with the Lord's command, should amble to the breakfast table in their shades and address their parents as "Mike" and "Carol."  Let's just say the Brady parents did not approve of this innovative custom of protest, disrespectful of tradition and authority.

Some objectors to pastors being called "father" argue that the Lord's words "call no man father" does not apply to our bio-dads - only to our fathers in the spiritual sense, such as pastors.  In so doing, such people are arguing that the Lord's words are literal in some cases, but figurative in other cases; that "call" is literal while "no man" is figurative - at very least, in some cases, but not others.  They parse the metaphor to not include some fathers, but to include other fathers.  It's all very confusing.

Many pastors (as well as ordained men not serving as pastors) are also "instuctors" ("neither be called instructors" v. 10) - whether they are teachers at parochial schools, universities, or seminaries.  The title "instructor" (as the ESV renders καθηγητής) must include the many titles we have for instructors, such as "Professor" and "Doctor."  Yet I have yet to hear anyone offended by this common practice, refer to it as sinful, or interpret the Lord's words to be a literal prohibition against calling men, ordained or lay, "Doctor" or "Professor."

Thus the argument, hacked at haphazardly by Occam's razor, runs like this:

• Calling your biological, well, um, father, by the names "Father," "Dad," Pop," "Papa," etc. is okay.  
• Calling your doctor "Doctor" is okay.  
• Calling your ordained professor "Reverend Doctor" is okay.  
• Referring to the Bishop of Rome as "the Pope" (which is an Anglicized form of the Latin/Italian title "Papa") is okay.  
• But calling your spiritual, um, father, "Father" is one of the few linguistic prohibitions ever given us by our blessed Lord.

Moreover, if it is sinful to apply the title "father" to religious leaders, then St. Stephen committed this sin against our Lord just before being stoned to death by the men he called "fathers" by means as spiritual address, not to mention the Holy Spirit's ill-conceived judgment in allowing this in the inspired Scriptures (Acts 7:2).

But what of our Lutheran confessions?  Surely, calling clergymen "Father," from the parish priest to the Pope (which again means "Father"), was a common practice at the time of the Reformation.  Lutherans based their doctrine and practice on scripture - which certainly includes Matt 23.  Luther did not shy away from making reforms in doctrine and practice that were contrary to our Lord's words.  In fact, he was himself referred to as "Father Martin" as an ordained priest in a monastic order.  One would expect that after the Reformation, his title suddenly became "Pastor Luther."  Even "Doctor" would have been discarded if Luther interpreted Matt 23:9-10 in such as way as to gainsay the use of the honorific "Reverend Father" among Christian clergy.

Well, let's see what the Lutheran Confessions say.

Matt 23:9-10 never appears in the Book of Concord.  Not once.

In fact, the Lutheran confessions do not accept this supposed dominical prohibition of the title "Father," but they actually make use of it.

• In the subscriptions to the Smalcald Articles, one of the signatories, Brixius Northanus, refers to the Smalcald Articles as "the Articles of the Reverend Father Martin Luther" ("articulis reverendi Patris M. Lutheri") - SA 3:15:27.
• In the subscriptions to the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (the title of the treatise itself violates Matt 23:9-10 if our Lord is speaking literally), we find the signature of John Brentz, who makes a statement of assent to the articles with a reference to "Dr. John Bugenhgen, most revered Father in Christ" ("D. Iohannes Bugenhagi, Pater in Christo observandi") - Tr - Subscriptions.  In this case, the "offense" is doubled by using both "Father" and "Doctor" as titles of address.  "Doctor" as a title is spread liberally throughout the subscriptions.  If these were seen as inappropriate usages, one could not find a hint of support from the Book of Concord.
• The Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration) includes this reference: "Therefore also our dear fathers and predecessors, as Lutheran and other pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession..." ("Derhalben auch unsere lieben Väter und Vorfahren, als Lutherus und andere reine Lehrer Augsburglicher Konfession..." / "Quare patres et pii maiores nostri, D. Lutherus et alii sinceri doctores Augustanae Confessionibus...") FC SD 7:58.  This passage uses both "fathers" and "teachers" in a way that those citing Matt 23:9-10 in a literal way ought to disapprove of.
• Martin Luther is also referred to as "doctor" and "teacher" in the Solid Declaration: "Dr. Luther as the leading teacher of the Augsburg Confession..." ("D. Luthers, as die vornehmsten Lehrers der Augsburgischen Konfession" / "D. Lutheri ut primarii doctoris Augustanae Confessionis") FC SD 7:34.
• And it goes without saying that the bishop of Rome is referred to as "the Pope" in the Book of Concord: more than 120 times!

So either the literal interpretation of Matt 23:9-10 is wrong or the Book of Concord is in error.

We are all - spiritual fathers and spiritual children alike - guilty of quite enough real sins that we really don't need to be condemned further, accused of sinning against made-made rules under the guise of innovative Protestant customs rooted in bad hermeneutics and in ignorance of what the Book of Concord contains and of what the Lutheran fathers confessed and practiced.

In the end, Greg Brady learned the foolishness of playing the "exact words" hermeneutical game when it suited his selfish ends to reinterpret an obvious meaning within an obvious context.  Some of our Lutheran brethren have not learned this lesson.  

In our churches, Mass is celebrated...

By Larry Beane

In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc. ~ Ap 24:1

Some make the argument that this is merely descriptive rather than prescriptive - therefore it is purely optional. Some would even say this used to be descriptive and is actually expired or not true any more. And yet in spite of this, Lutheran pastors still take unqualified vows that this Book of Concord norms their ministry in the Church. The reality is this: the entire Book of Concord is descriptive - it describes the doctrine and practice of our churches. We do not obey the Book of Concord, rather we confess it. It describes our faith and explicates how we (Lutherans, that is) interpret the Scriptures.

Some argue that there is no theological significance to AC 24 and its corresponding article in the Apology (Ap 24), that these are as irrelevant to our faith and practice as the statement, "In our churches, we have men's rooms that have urinals and waste baskets." Such a statement would be a throw-away line, a historical curiosity like knee breeches and powdered wigs - as quaint and useless as a quill pen.

But the reality is this: the confessors laid out an entire article to describe and defend the Lutheran practices of weekly communion and traditional worship. Both were already being discarded by some groups in the 16th century, and the Lutherans were very careful to distance themselves from the infrequent-communion and non-traditional-worship parties. Our practice of weekly, traditional, liturgical, Catholic Mass is a theological consequence and lived-out practicum of our doctrines, beliefs, and interpretation of the Scriptures - so much so that the reformers angrily corrected insinuations to the contrary (e.g. "We are unjustly accused of having abolished the Mass.  Without boasting, it is manifest that the Mass is observed among us with greater devotion and more earnestness than among our opponents" (AC 24:9)).

To those who claim Ap 24 is quaint, outdated, irrelevant, and no longer part of our confession, I would argue that it is even more fresh and timely today than in 1530. For today Lutherans are pressured - by society, by other Christians, by their own hierarchs and bureaucrats, by some of their own clergy, by some of their own lay people, by moneyed interests, and by those who care more about feelings than confessions - to abandon this article and concede to infrequent communion and entertainment-based non-traditional and/or non-liturgical worship. In many cases, pastors are unable to keep this promise they made at ordination out of pastoral concern for their congregations who may have parishioners who will violently oppose something as simple as using the hymnal or having the Holy Sacrament every Sunday - and so they must pray and teach, perhaps at best hoping to "move the chains" a few yards so that a future pastor might be able to bring this great blessing to the parish - even as we are all collectively committed to do by virtue of our vows.

The reason we need the traditional worship forms and weekly Eucharist is because we are sinners. That has not changed since 1530. What has changed is that our culture is even more self-centered (living in a 24-7 entertainment culture) and less influenced by Christian doctrine and practice than in the days of the reformers. The solution is not to compromise either our doctrine or our practice. The solution is the opposite: to be faithful to our doctrine and practice - because our faith is not something that changes with every whim of the culture. We cling to traditional marriage and traditional liturgy - even though hipsters and celebrities tell us both are no longer relevant. 

They only lose their relevance when Christians reject them in order to be popular. The Book of Concord places us firmly within the catholic tradition. It never once describes us as Protestant. Not only does the Book of Concord confess traditional and liturgical worship forms, it decries novelty (AC 24:40) and frivolity (FC SD 10:9) in our ceremonial.

Not all Christians confess the Book of Concord.  In fact, very few do explicitly.  Many Christians indeed do not enjoy the blessings of weekly Eucharist (and the Real Presence) and the awestruck reverence that goes hand-in-glove with the confession of the Real Presence - a reverence that not merely results from, but also shapes, our worship life as Christians.  Those who lack it are the poorer for it.  Similarly, many Christians deny the reality that Holy Baptism regenerates, that divine grace is monergistic, and that pastors forgive sins by virtue of their office by Christ's authority.  But all Lutherans, by definition, joyfully and humbly confess these things - even as all Lutheran pastors and congregations, by definition, willingly and explicitly bind themselves to the Book of Concord - including AC and Ap 24.

And what we confess, we should also believe and teach.  What we teach we should also strive insofar as we are able, to put into practice:

In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc.  ~ Ap 24:1